Americans United - Billy Grahamhttps://au.org/tags/billy-graham
enChurch Of Mammon?: IRS Says Large Televangelist Group Qualifies As A House Of Worshiphttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/church-of-mammon-irs-says-large-televangelist-group-qualifies-as-a-house-of
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">It’s very difficult to know how much money Daystar brings in or how that money is spent.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>If you want to start a church, all you need is your own television show. So says the Internal Revenue Service, anyway.</p><p><a href="http://wuwm.com/post/can-television-network-be-church-irs-says-yes">A recent report</a> by National Public Radio (NPR) told the puzzling story of Daystar, a televangelist network based in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The network, which is run by Marcus and Joni Lamb, is “dedicated to spreading the Gospel 24 hours a day, seven days a week” to its potential audience of 2 billion worldwide.</p><p>Daystar says it is the fastest-growing televangelist organization on the planet, and NPR found that it had assets of $233 million as of June 30, 2011.</p><p>Daystar is a lot like Pat Robertson’s or Billy Graham’s operations, with one major difference: unlike those organizations, Daystar is considered a church by the IRS.</p><p>Why is that significant? Just like Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Daystar is a tax-exempt ministry with 501(c)(3) status. But unlike CBN, which must file a detailed financial statement annually called Form 990, Daystar is not obligated to disclose anything about its budget. As a result, it’s very difficult to know how much money Daystar brings in or how that money is spent.</p><p>NPR noted that Daystar is the biggest religious television network in the United States that is considered a church. How did this happen? It’s all thanks to a highly questionable decision by the IRS.</p><p>Under the federal tax code, it’s really easy to start a house of worship. Basically, you can just set up shop and declare yourself a church without much questioning from the IRS. As NPR explained, the IRS has long had a “<a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica94.pdf">14-point test</a>” used to determine whether or not an organization is a legitimate church, but it’s rarely used these days for unknown reasons.</p><p>“For the most part, a church is a church if they say it’s a church,” Ron Wright, tax assessor-collector in Tarrant County, Texas, where Daystar is located, told NPR. “And if it’s a church, then it’s tax-exempt.”</p><p>The 14-point test lists really basic requirements for churches, such as offering regular services, holding religious instruction classes, being led by ordained ministers and having a congregation.</p><p>During legal proceedings a few years back, Marcus Lamb said Daystar’s congregation is its television audience. But Marcus Owens, a prominent Washington, D.C., tax attorney who once headed the IRS’ exempt organizations division, said that argument has been rejected by the IRS in at least one previous case.</p><p><strong>“</strong>That argument did not fly,” he told NPR, “because of the absence of a congregation, a group in the room with the religious leader when the services occurred.”</p><p>Daystar has been considered a house of worship from the start, but some of its former employees don’t agree that it really is a church.</p><p>“When the lights are on and the cameras are on, we're a ministry,” said Lisa Anderson, a one-time executive assistant to the Lambs. “When those lights are off, cameras are off, it doesn't feel like a ministry. It is a business making money.”</p><p>Bill Hornback, Daystar’s former manager of IT, agrees.</p><p>“I mean, there’s no Sunday sermon, no Wednesday night meeting,” he said. “It’s all business. It’s not a church. It’s a television broadcasting company, that’s what they are.”</p><p>Even a Daystar supporter, a Christian pop singer named Jordan Riley, doesn’t view Daystar as a church.</p><p><strong>“</strong>Church to me is when I'm gathered with other believers,” Riley said. “I don't consider it an electronic church.”</p><p>The IRS should not be spending all its time pouring over records to figure out what is and is not a church. What the IRS should be doing, however, is making sure tax-exempt organizations are not simply raising piles of money and spending it on their own personal interests. And that is where Daystar is raising some red flags.</p><p>According to six years of financial records reviewed by NPR, Daystar’s leadership seems to have its hand in the collection plate.</p><p>Daystar gave $433,000 to Oral Roberts University, primarily while the Lamb’s three children attended; $53,683 to Lake Country Christian School, which the Lamb children attended; $296,091 to the Lamb’s family church; $32,200 to the Christian marriage counseling organization that the Lambs claim saved their marriage; $24,026 to Lee University in Cleveland, Tenn., which Marcus Lamb attended; $21,879 to a nursing home where Marcus’ father lived until his death; $60,000 to Israeli lawyers who helped Daystar get a cable television contract and $572,154 for the sponsorship of Christian NASCAR driver Blake Koch.</p><p>Daystar seems to take good care of its friends, too. The group made a $2.3 million loan to Marcus Lamb’s golfing buddy, the Rev. Frank Harber, so that he could start a church. Daystar also spent $97,320 to buy up copies of Joni Lamb's autobiography, <em>Surrender</em> <em>All</em>, NPR said.</p><p>As NPR noted correctly, none of this activity is illegal. But the IRS does crack down on any tax-exempt organization that seems to exist mainly (or purely) for the benefit of its bosses. These records show more than enough to raise doubts about how the Lambs spend their church’s money – and who is helped by that spending.</p><p>Sadly, Daystar is not the only dubious “church” out there. Liberty Counsel, a Religious Right legal group affiliated with Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty University, <a href="https://au.org/church-state/julyaugust-2012-church-state/people-events/falwell-legal-group-hides-its-budget-from">bills itself as a “church auxiliary</a>.” It did so in 2006, and hasn’t filed a public disclosure form since. As far as we know, the IRS has never questioned this activity. Yet, we do know that Liberty Counsel is, in its own words,<strong> “</strong>an international nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family….” Does that sound like any church you know about?</p><p>There is no fundamental difference between Daystar and a handful of other televangelists, except Daystar is a church and the others are not. The IRS made a mistake letting Daystar be classified as a church, and it needs to take a hard look at Daystar’s operation immediately. It seems unlikely that this ministry could withstand even basic scrutiny because it simply is not a church under the IRS’ own definition.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/outside-workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice-including-military-prisons">Outside the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice (including in the Military, Prisons, Housing, Healthcare, etc.)</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/daystar">Daystar</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/marcus-owens">Marcus Owens</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/marcus-lamb">Marcus Lamb</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/joni-lamb">Joni Lamb</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pat-robertson">Pat Robertson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/christian-broadcasting-network">Christian Broadcasting Network</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham">Billy Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/liberty-counsel">Liberty Counsel</a></span></div></div>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:05:21 +0000Simon Brown9805 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/church-of-mammon-irs-says-large-televangelist-group-qualifies-as-a-house-of#commentsThe Partisan Preacher’s Complaint: Franklin Graham Has No Grounds To Whine About IRShttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-partisan-preacher-s-complaint-franklin-graham-has-no-grounds-to-whine
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Evangelist Franklin Graham is trying to make himself look like another victim of a run-amok IRS. Nice try, but it won’t work.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The ongoing scandal over the Internal Revenue Service’s heightened scrutiny of Tea Party groups took another twist yesterday when evangelist Franklin Graham complained that the ministry founded by this father, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), was also <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/franklin-graham-irs-targeting-91362.html">investigated by the tax agency</a>.</p><p>Graham wrote a letter to President Barack Obama griping because, he claimed, the IRS sent agents to the North Carolina offices of the BGEA and Samaritan’s Purse, a charity Graham runs, to investigate claims that the ministries had waded into partisan politics.</p><p>Graham is trying to make himself look like another victim of a run-amok IRS. Nice try, but it won’t work. The two situations are quite different.</p><p>I disagree with the politics of the Tea Party, but it sure looks like some of these organizations have legitimate grounds for complaint. These groups had applied for tax-exempt status and were being subjected to additional hurdles and onerous paperwork that was not applied to similarly situated organizations. That’s clearly unfair.</p><p>Graham, by contrast, has no valid reason to complain. His ministries are already tax exempt. As a condition of keeping that exemption, they are required to refrain from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates.</p><p>Yet the Graham groups don’t seem to want to follow those rules. Graham concedes that he has in years past used the BGEA to send messages to donors advising them to support “candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”</p><p>Furthermore, in 2012, Franklin Graham arranged for his father to meet with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and endorse him. The senior Graham told Romney, “I will do all I can to help you,”</p><p>Shortly after that, the BGEA began using the ministry’s tax-exempt funds to pay for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/billy-graham-ads-mitt-romney_n_1983113.html">full-page ads in newspapers</a>.</p><p>They featured Billy Graham stating, “I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.”</p><p>Gee, which candidate do you think the Grahams wanted people to support for president? Could it be Romney who opposed same-sex marriage and not Obama who favors it?</p><p>Franklin Graham is now complaining to the media that he was targeted by the IRS. Well, in light of those ads he should have been. My only regret was that the IRS didn’t yank his ministries’ tax-exempt status.</p><p>One more thought about this: Note that Graham wrote his letter of complaint to President Obama. Why? The president does not sit around and personally sign off on every policy the tax agency undertakes.</p><p>Despite the ravings of the far right who have taken to comparing Obama to President Richard M. Nixon, who famously used the IRS to harass his political enemies, there has been nothing so far connecting Obama to the IRS’s actions. As a matter of fact, federal law <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/is-the-i-r-s-an-independent-agency/">bars such presidential intrusion</a> into tax agency activities.</p><p>If Graham has a beef with the IRS, he needs to take it to the top officials of that agency, not the White House. So why did Graham write to Obama? Probably because he’s trying to embarrass the president and drag him into the scandal.</p><p>In other words, this feigned outrage is just more partisan politics from Franklin Graham.</p><p>P.S. For more on the IRS scandal, check out AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-w-lynn/church-electioneering-and_b_3267250.html">op-ed</a> on “The Huffington Post.”</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/franklin-graham">Franklin Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham">Billy Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mitt-romney">Mitt Romney</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham-evangelistic-association">Billy Graham Evangelistic Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tea-party-0">Tea Party</a></span></div></div>Wed, 15 May 2013 14:53:20 +0000Rob Boston8365 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-partisan-preacher-s-complaint-franklin-graham-has-no-grounds-to-whine#commentsQuadrennial Question: Is The Religious Right Positively, Absolutely Dead?https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/quadrennial-question-is-the-religious-right-positively-absolutely-dead
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">I recommend that Americans not exaggerate the Religious Right’s power but don’t underestimate it either.
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The role of the Religious Right in the Republican Party and national political life is under a lot of scrutiny these days.</p><p>Everyone from Ralph Reed and Richard Land to Billy Graham and Tony Perkins did everything in their considerable power to steer the election to Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates, and they failed miserably. These folks even lost a string of referenda on issues such as taxpayer funding of religion, reproductive rights and marriage equality.</p><p>As a result of these losses, some pundits and prognosticators are declaring the fundamentalist political movement to be yesterday’s news. Few are pronouncing the Religious Right “undeniably and reliably” dead this time (as has happened often in the past). But respected analysts are finding it mighty sickly.</p><p>According to <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/politics/election/white-christian-voters-no-longer-hold-keys-to-the-white-house">Religion News Service</a>, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has concluded that relying on white Christian voters will never again spell national electoral success -- especially for the GOP. PRRI <a href="http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/11/american-values-post-election-survey-2012/">released a survey </a>yesterday about religion’s role in the presidential race.</p><p>Forty percent of Romney’s vote came from white evangelical Christians, but obviously that wasn’t enough to put him over the top. As a matter of fact, eight in ten of the Republican candidate’s votes came from white Christians of one sort or another.</p><p>In contrast, Barack Obama won with a more diverse mixture. Thirteen percent of his voters were white mainline Protestants, and 13 percent were white Catholics. Hispanic or other Catholics made up 10 percent of the Obama vote, and black Protestants accounted for 16 percent. The religiously unaffiliated contributed 25 percent to the president’s total. (Eight percent of Obama’s vote came from white evangelical Protestants! Somebody get the smelling salts for Franklin Graham.)</p><p>“The changing religious landscape is presenting a real challenge to the strategy that relied on motivated white Christians, particularly white evangelical Christians,” said PRRI Research Director Dan Cox. “They’re still turning out at similar levels as they did in previous elections, but their size in comparison to other groups is shrinking.”</p><p>The PRRI analysts have a good point. Diversity <em>is </em>increasing in America. But we shouldn’t get too giddy about the putative reduction in the Religious Right’s power.</p><p>I’ve been following the Religious Right since 1980, and I’ve seen this crowd go through lots of ups and downs. I recommend that Americans not exaggerate the Religious Right’s power but don’t underestimate it either.</p><p>White evangelical Christians remain one of the largest and most disciplined voting blocs in American politics. They show up at the polls on a regular basis, and they tend to vote heavily for candidates who want to restrict abortion, deny basic civil rights to the LGBT community and generally bring more religion (of their sort) into government.</p><p>Many Americans vote only in presidential elections or hotly contested state and local races. Most Religious Right voters show up every time. That means they have a disproportionate influence in the electoral process.</p><p>In addition, the Religious Right has achieved a dominant role in one of our two major political parties. This was clear during the Republican presidential primary when all the candidates competed with each other to curry favor with the fundamentalist bloc.</p><p>Religious Right leaders are warning the GOP leadership that the party had better not moderate its stands on abortion, gay rights and related social issues or there will be hell to pay (so to speak).</p><p>Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said conservative Christians will bolt if the party drops its platform plan calling for a ban on all abortions.</p><p>“[W]e will leave you if you betray us,” she wrote in<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-womens-vote-drop-our-plank-lose-our-vote-84925/"> a <em>Christian Post</em> essay.</a> “Yes, I said it – and I mean it.”</p><p>I haven’t heard many Republican establishment heavyweights taking on the party’s theocratic wing. For GOP big shots apparently, it’s can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.</p><p>To me, all this means that the Religious Right is likely to remain a powerful political factor, whether they win or lose in a given election year.</p><p>Needless to say, I am not a fan of the Religious Right. I think it is a dangerous movement that threatens the very foundation stones of American life – individual freedom and the separation of church and state. There’s nothing I’d like better than to see it lumber off the national scene.</p><p>I just don’t see it happening any time soon.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups%E2%80%99-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-right-0">Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ralph-reed">ralph reed</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham">Billy Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tony-perkins">Tony Perkins</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/franklin-graham">Franklin Graham</a></span></div></div>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:32:21 +0000Joseph L. Conn7732 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/quadrennial-question-is-the-religious-right-positively-absolutely-dead#commentsMilitary Victories: Non-Theist Event Approved At Fort Bragg, Sectarian Training At Vandenberg Nukedhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/military-victories-non-theist-event-approved-at-fort-bragg-sectarian
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The military should welcome all service personnel regardless of their religion (or lack of it) and never play favorites.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Here’s some good news out of North Carolina: Officials at Fort Bragg have agreed to allow non-religious soldiers to sponsor a festival next year called “Rock Beyond Belief.” Army officials will give the festival’s organizers an appropriate outdoor venue and make it possible for them to promote the event on base and off.</p>
<p>Many of you might recall <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/11/army-of-god.html">the flap that erupted</a> at Fort Bragg last year after the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association held an event on base called “Rock the Fort.” Chaplains at the fort heavily promoted the evangelistic rally and concert to people living on base and in the surrounding community – even though it was clearly proselytizing in nature.</p>
<p>Americans United learned about “Rock the Fort” just days before it was scheduled to occur. Although we were unable to get officials at the fort to cancel it, we did advise them that they were making a mistake. The Graham organization, we argued, should seek converts on its own time with its own resources and not rely on the military for help.</p>
<p>In response, military officials insisted that they would allow the same right of access for a non-Christian event. Yet when Sgt. Justin Griffith submitted paperwork for “Rock Beyond Belief,” he was given only grudging approval. Griffith was told the event could take place at an indoor auditorium and that he had to make it clear that the fort had nothing to do with the event.</p>
<p>This was not Griffith’s original vision. He wanted to duplicate what the Graham group did – have an outdoor festival with bands, speakers and activities for children. Reluctantly, he turned down the fort’s offer, finding the conditions unacceptable.</p>
<p>Americans United and the American Civil Liberties Union started doing some digging. Using the Freedom of Information Act, we requested public documents and learned some interesting things – mainly, that the fort’s support of the Graham event <a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2011/07/fort-bragg-support-of-graham.html">violated</a> the Army’s own regulations.</p>
<p>Griffith was informed recently that “Rock Beyond Belief” has been approved for March 31, 2012. The free event will take place outdoors at the main post parade field and be open to the public. There will be bands, vendors and activities for children. The headline speaker will be Richard Dawkins, the famous Oxford University evolutionary biologist and author.</p>
<p>A joint Americans United/ACLU letter may have played a key role in bringing this about. After the organizations examined the documents, we wrote to Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh and commanders at Fort Bragg to explain where they had gone wrong.</p>
<p>“Supporting an event designed to increase membership in Christian churches cannot be squared with [Army] regulations, much less with the First Amendment,” observed<a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2011/07/fort-bragg-demand-letter-1.pdf"> the letter</a>. “Furthermore, based on the Army’s own admissions, it is clear that Fort Bragg officials engaged in substantial co-sponsorship and support of Rock the Fort – support that cannot plausibly be deemed ‘incidental.’”</p>
<p>The bottom line for us is simple. The military should welcome all service personnel regardless of their religion (or lack of it) and never play favorites. The Army’s own policies call for equal treatment, and we wanted to see it implemented in this case.</p>
<p>And here’s some more good news from the military: The Air Force has agreed to stop using a training course for nuclear missile launch officers that was steeped in theology. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (<a href="http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/">MRFF</a>) objected to the material, which had been used at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for more than 20 years. Air Force officials agreed it was inappropriate.</p>
<p>“The group obtained a PowerPoint presentation used in the course that referenced religious figures including Abraham, John the Baptist and Saint Augustine,” <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/air-force-suspends-ethics-course-that-used-bible-passages-to-train-missile-launch-officers/2011/08/02/gIQAv6V2pI_blog.html">reported</a> <em>The Washington Post</em>. “The presentation also said that there are ‘many examples of believers engaged in wars in the Old Testament’ and ‘no pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history.’”</p>
<p><em>The Post</em> noted that an Air Force captain who encountered the course during training in 2006 called it the “Jesus-loves-nukes speech.”</p>
<p>We’ve had our share of church-state problems in the military in recent years. We can only hope that these victories are a sign that things are looking up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham">Billy Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/fort-bragg">Fort Bragg</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/justin-griffith">Justin Griffith</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/military-religious-freedom-foundation">Military Religious Freedom Foundation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rock-beyond-belief">Rock Beyond Belief</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rock-fort">Rock the Fort</a></span></div></div>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:49:37 +0000Rob Boston2218 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/military-victories-non-theist-event-approved-at-fort-bragg-sectarian#commentsA Political Pastor’s Penitence: Graham Wishes He Hadn’t Been So Close To Power After Allhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-political-pastor%E2%80%99s-penitence-graham-wishes-he-hadn%E2%80%99t-been-so-close-to
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The mixing of church and state can cut both ways; sometimes religious leaders and the churches they lead are corrupted by political leaders.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>There is a myth about the famous evangelist Billy Graham that goes like this: Graham was apolitical, a pastor to all presidents, Republican and Democratic. His main goal was to provide comfort by sharing faith. He was above politics.</p>
<p>The only problem with this is that it’s not true. Sure, Graham did pray with presidents from both parties. But he had a bad habit of interjecting himself into right-wing politics. He often took ultra-conservative stands and during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon became a type of informal White House advisor.</p>
<p>As Nixon prepared to face U.S. Sen. George McGovern in November of 1972, Graham <a href="http://www.mountainx.com/news/2007/071807buzz4/">fired off memos </a>that sounded like something you’d get from a seasoned political operative.</p>
<p>“I would seriously question the wisdom of your becoming personally involved in the campaign before early September,” Graham wrote in one memo. “If the polls and the mood of the country continue as is you may be wise to do only a minimum of campaigning. I think Senator McGovern is perfectly capable of making further mistakes.”</p>
<p>Not long after that, McGovern’s running mate, Sargent Shriver, called Graham to request that he give a public invocation prior to Shriver’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. Graham, in dismay, called the White House. A memo to Nixon reported that Graham wanted to appear bipartisan “at least until about October,” when he would “throw his support to the side of the President more effectively.” Graham, the memo went on to say, had vowed to “do nothing to hurt the President or to help McGovern.”</p>
<p>In 2002, <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2002/04/pampe.html">some audio recordings</a> of Nixon and Graham in the White House surfaced. The tapes were made in 1972 without Graham’s knowledge. He doesn’t come off looking too good in them.</p>
<p>Graham and Nixon were discussing the president’s reelection effort. When Graham mentioned he had a meeting coming up with the editors of <em>Time</em>, Nixon aide H.R. Haldeman, who was also in the room, interjected, “You meet with all their editors, you better take your Jewish beanie.”</p>
<p>Graham, laughing, asked, “Is that right? I don’t know any of them now.”</p>
<p>Nixon then launched into an anti-Semitic tirade, saying, “<em>Newsweek</em> is totally, it’s all run by Jews and dominated by them in their editorial pages. <em>The New York Times</em>, <em>The Washington Post</em>, totally Jewish, too.”</p>
<p>To this Graham replied, “The stranglehold has got to be broken, or the country’s going to go down the drain.”</p>
<p>Nixon is heard asking, “You believe that?”</p>
<p>“Yes, sir,” Graham said, to which Nixon replied, “Oh boy, so do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”</p>
<p>Responded Graham, “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something.” Later in the conversation, Graham spoke of knowing Jews working in the media and said they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” He went on to say, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.”</p>
<p>How charming.</p>
<p>Forty years later, Graham seems to have finally realized that his political alliance with Nixon might have been a mistake. The aging evangelist <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/qabillygraham.html?start=2">was asked</a> by <em>Christianity Today</em> if he had any regrets about his career. Graham said he wished he had spent more time with his family, then added, “I also would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”</p>
<p>Advising Nixon on how to get reelected and then joining the megalomaniac in an anti-Semitic rant? Yeah, that might have been crossing the line!</p>
<p>Since 1947, Americans United has steadfastly opposed efforts by religious groups to write their theology into law and force all of us to live under it. But the mixing of church and state can cut both ways. Sometimes religious leaders and the churches they lead are corrupted by political leaders.</p>
<p>Politicians have goals that often have little to do with advancing a spiritual kingdom. Usually, their eye is on the next election. If cozying up to a popular religious leader will help them with that, they’ll do it.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, as Billy Graham has learned, sometimes the religious leader becomes collateral damage.</p>
<p>One more thought on this: Graham’s son Franklin meddles in politics, seeks to get close to centers of power and has insulted other religions, including Islam and Hinduism. It’s a shame Franklin hasn’t learned from his father’s mistakes.</p>
<p>P.S. Americans United is moving, and "The Wall of Separation" blog will be on hiatus until Tuesday. Effective Monday, AU's new address is: 1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 850, East Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005. AU's phone number will remain the same -- (202) 466-3234.</p>
<p><a href="https://mail.au.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=5c1c67109914423cbb38ab5bfae6d472&amp;URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.christianitytoday.com%2fct%2f2011%2fjanuaryweb-only%2fqabillygraham.html%3fstart%3d2" target="_blank"><br /></a></p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/billy-graham">Billy Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/franklin-graham">Franklin Graham</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-politics">Religion in Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-m-nixon">Richard M. Nixon</a></span></div></div>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:53:16 +0000Rob Boston2159 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-political-pastor%E2%80%99s-penitence-graham-wishes-he-hadn%E2%80%99t-been-so-close-to#comments